On March 4, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling in National Women’s Law Center v. Office of Management and Budget (Civil Action No. 17-cv-2458) vacating:
The opinion goes into specific detail as to the reasoning behind vacating the stay, the legality of the OMB decision, and much more. But rather than bury you with legal reasoning (for example, the judge found that the OMB provided inadequate reasoning to support its decision to stay the data collection), here are some key takeaways for employers:
The EEO-1 Survey is a mandatory compliance survey from the EEOC that requires employers to report on employment data categorized by race or ethnicity, gender, and job category, and now, pay data. All employment data must come from one payroll period in October, November, or December of the current year (otherwise referred to as a “workplace snapshot”) and, logically, 2018 is the year that is currently being reported.
The following private employers are required to submit the survey:
Employers are now required to collect a summary of employee pay data along with the total hours worked. This requirement was created to better understand wage gaps and pay disparity in the workplace. This data may also assist the EEOC in its studies and reports on pay disparities by race, sex, industry, occupational groupings, and Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
Prior to the requirement for pay data, the EEO-1 form only required reporting on gender, race, and ethnicity of employees as Component 1. The pay data requirement introduced Component 2, where employers must report aggregate W-2 (Box 1) income along with hours-worked data.
We covered the back-and-forth on this issue as it unfolded. Related posts include:
Get breaking news on people risk management topics that you need to take action on. Subscribe to this blog.